So, here’s the thing: The ether is an outdated concept that was left behind when relativity came around. Since then, relativity has proven its models in observations of predictions, experiments and practical applications, while the ether has never amounted to anything. There is no point experimenting on the ether, as long as relativity just keeps proving itself right. The point where relativity breaks apart is on the subatomic scale, clearly showing that the model is flawed, or at the least incomplete. And guess what, there is a lot of work and experiments being done in that area. None of which involve the ether, I’m afraid.
I’m sorry, I just don’t have the time to listen to somebody who thinks photons have mass. I’ll rather spend the time watching some veritassium or PBS spacetime videos about quantum mechanics. I don’t understand those either, but at least I know these guys aren’t just peddling their oppinions, so anything I might understand from them might actually be useful at some point.
I took a short look at this, and yes, it’s pretty cool. A pretty common low-budget science experiment, though. It was first performed about 200 years ago (though admittedly in 2D, but same concept). I don’t see any relation to the topic.
I still think you may be confusing galaxies for universes (it would be very fitting for an NMS forum, where there was quite a confusion in the marketing about the distinction ).
Now, I don’t see how ITER would be able to create a universe, such esoteric side effects are usually what the LHC is accused of being capable of (not that it is. If it would actually have formed even just a black hole, that would have been bloody amazing, but unfortunately it didn’t).
But galaxies? What kind of definition do you have for the term, exactly? Because here’s mine:
a system of millions or billions of stars, together with gas and dust, held together by gravitational attraction.
I.e. you need, by definition, stars to form a galaxy. How any piece of technology is supposed to produce an actual star on earth without creating a pocket universe for it to form is honestly beyond me (not that I think that we can form a pocket universe, but at least here things become so abstract that flights of fancy are understandable).
I’m afraid experiments with modern tech are done on modern theories, not ones that are a century out of date.
It is weird that you would basically repeat the statement that I made that startedthis whole discussion: The model is not the reality. But a theory is somewhat more than an idea. Most notably, a theory is falsifiable. Before you can list clear criteria on what observations would disprove your theory, it’s not a theory. It’s what is generally called a hypothesis, although the term is not usually applied to ideas that have already been falsified by observations. Those are either called failed ideas if they were around and then disproven, or just pseudoscience if they emerge later than the experiment that already disproved them, or re-emerged without addressing the contradiction pointed out by the previous experiments. The ether, back in the day, was a hypothesis, then it became a failed idea, and since people are bringing it up again without even attempting to reconcile it with relativity, it’s apparently pseudoscience now.
It doesn’t (prove it, that is). But they are fairly easily to explain (on a surface level) with the current model. If you were to propose a model in which light is static, you’d have to address how reflections work if not by redirecting light, and if you can’t manage that, all it does prove is that your model doesn’t hold up, and that we’re better of sticking to the one we have.